Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds material context beyond that: 'Credential-free public ATS JSON' discloses that no auth is needed and the source is a public ATS endpoint, and 'detail is inline' warns that a single call returns full posting bodies (relevant for response size/latency tradeoffs vs. the single-posting sibling).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then input derivation, then the sibling routing hint. No filler or restated title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed. Combined with annotations covering read-only/open-world behavior and a description covering auth, filterability, and sibling selection, an agent has everything required to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, including the slug format and the contains-match semantics of the filters. The description restates the company slug derivation and the three optional filters but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (lists) and resource (a company's public Lever postings), plus the scoping detail that full detail is inline and optional filters. It names the sibling jobs_lever_posting as the single-posting counterpart, so an agent can distinguish it from the ~dozens of other jobs_* tools without opening schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes to the alternative: 'Use jobs_lever_posting to get a single Lever posting' gives the condition that selects the sibling over this tool. It also tells the agent how to obtain the required input ('the Lever slug from its careers URL') and that filtering is optional.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.